Undertaker loses appeal

THE unceremonious cremation of Daisy Jones was a cursory and
private affair. Even her own grieving family were unaware of the
event until after its passing.

But the circumstances surrounding the centenarian's funeral and
that of a man she never knew who was cremated in her place continue
to be played out through the courts, almost six years after the
ordeal.

Yesterday, another episode began, with the Five Dock undertaker
at the centre of the row ordered to stand trial for a third time on
charges of dishonestly obtaining money and attempting to obtain
money by deception.

Adam James Lee, the managing director of Caring Funerals, lost
his appeal in the Supreme Court. His barrister, Roland Bonnici,
unsuccessfully argued that judge Roderick Howie had erred when he
decided in April last year that two earlier judgements by the
magistrate Pat O'Shane, which both cleared Lee of the charges, were
fundamentally flawed.

Details of the case would read like an episode of Fawlty
Towers, if it were not for the shock and anger the families of
Mrs Jones and Errol Davidson have been through since.

In November 2001, a Caring Funerals employee, Robin Ebbott,
alerted health authorities to a body mix-up. The coffin of Mr
Davidson was exhumed, revealing the body of Mrs Jones, along with
Mr Davidson's possessions and two concrete pavers, placed there to
disguise the difference in weight of the two bodies.

Mr Davidson had been mistakenly cremated in the place of Mrs
Jones a week earlier. Mr Davidson's ashes were subsequently
interred in his coffin, while Mrs Jones's body was later hurriedly
cremated by Caring Funerals without ceremony or notification, her
family say.

In court yesterday, it was revealed the Mrs Davidson was
subsequently sent a bill for her husband's wrongful cremation.

The NSW Chief Justice, Jim Spigelman, upheld Justice Howie's
judgement, and was critical of Ms O'Shane's handling of the
original case. Her judgement was flawed because it appeared she
believed the case revolved around whether Lee was responsible for
"switching the bodies". In reality, the case centred on whether Lee
had known, authorised or submitted the accounts for payment to the
families of the two deceased after the cover-up.

Mr Davidson's widow, Rose, said she was pleased Lee's appeal had
not succeeded. "Surely something better must come out of all this,"
she said.

Lee did not attend court yesterday, and did not return the
Herald's calls.